The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Utah’s land grab lawsuit, which sought control of 18.5 million acres of national public lands in the state. The high court's decision strikes a major blow to Utah's latest attempt to turn over the management of federal public lands.
In August, Governor Spencer Cox and then-Attorney General Sean Reyes filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to declare the management of millions of acres of federal land in Utah unconstitutional, a move that would have had serious ramifications for public lands across the country. The state has paid a law firm over $500,000 of taxpayer money to pursue the suit, and wasted millions more on a taxpayer-funded PR campaign to try to convince Utahns of their misguided effort.
“Even this staunchly conservative Supreme Court refused to take up Utah’s complaint, likely because it relies on a blatant misreading of the Constitution and would disrupt over a century of legal precedent and property law," said Center for Western Priorities Executive Director Jennifer Rokala.
In December the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) sued the Utah governor and attorney general for bringing the case to the Supreme Court. Steve Bloch, SUWA’s legal director, said in a statement, “We’re grateful the Supreme Court swiftly rejected the State of Utah’s misguided land grab lawsuit. For more than 100 years, the Supreme Court has affirmed the power of the federal government to hold and manage public lands on behalf of all Americans.”
What Trump's "energy dominance" agenda means for public lands
On the latest episode of The Landscape, Kate and Aaron are joined by Alan Zibel, a research director at Public Citizen who focuses on energy and environmental issues. He breaks down what Donald Trump and the incoming Congress’s so-called “energy dominance” agenda could mean for public lands—given that the U.S. is already the world’s top exporter of natural gas (otherwise known as methane).
|